Health-care reform: Do Republicans stand to gain from repeal vote?

When the US Supreme Court recently upheld President Obama's health-care reform law, its surprise decision appears to have tilted a substantial number of Americans closer to supporting Republican challenger Mitt Romney when they vote in November.

That's the finding of a new poll conducted in the wake of the high court's ruling.

For political independents – the voters likely to cast the decisive votes this fall – 26 percent said the court's ruling makes them more likely to support Mr. Romney, according to a Christian Science Monitor/Investor's Business Daily/TIPP poll. By contrast, only 14 percent said the court ruling makes them more likely to support Mr. Obama.

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the health-care reform? Take our quiz.

But the politics of health care is nothing if not complex.

Even as the court ruling appears to help Romney's cause, that doesn't necessarily mean congressional Republicans stand to gain in public opinion from their decision to hold a "repeal Obamacare" vote this week.

Like Romney, House Republicans have pledged a "repeal and replace" approach to the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA). But as conservative lawmakers seek to move down that path, they face two discomforting facts: Many Americans don't want the law repealed, and many are skeptical of whether Republicans have a good "replace" plan to offer.

Some Americans wholeheartedly reject the ACA, but many are more ambivalent. They may like core provisions of the law even as they worry about its impact on health-care costs and on the size of an already large federal bureaucracy.

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds a rise in support for the ACA since the court ruled. Its July poll finds 47 percent of US adults supporting the law, and an equal number opposed. Back in April the "opposed" camp led by 14 percentage points.

When it comes to repeal, the poll also finds division within that opposed camp. About one-third of them say they'd repeal the whole law, one-third say they'd repeal part of it, and the rest chose a "wait and see" option.

House Republicans plan to vote on repeal Wednesday. This wouldn't be the first time they've gone on the record to undo what they call Obamacare. But it would be their first effort to do so after the Supreme Court solidified the act as constitutional, in a decision that dashed conservative hopes.

The ruling's political impact cuts both ways, says Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducted the Monitor/TIPP poll from June 28 through July 6.

For many Democrats, the ruling adds luster to Obama's signature legislative achievement. But it also galvanizes the law's opposition. Overall, 29 percent of Americans in the Monitor/TIPP poll said they'll be more likely to vote for Romney because of the ruling, while 20 percent said it tilts them toward Obama. The rest said the ruling would have no impact, or that they were unsure.

And as already noted, the ruling tips two independent voters Romney's way for every one prodded toward Obama.

"Most people did not expect the result from the Supreme Court," Mr. Mayur says. Rather, surveys conducted prior to the ruling found Americans generally expecting the justices to strike down the law's mandate on individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a fine.

"The opponents of the health-care reform are people who do not subscribe to the big-government philosophy," Mr. Mayur says. The ruling "helps them to gravitate more towards Romney."

The Monitor/TIPP poll also found the presidential contest tightening into essentially a neck-and-neck race.

The poll also found that, although the economy is the election's major issue, health care will remain an important topic on voter minds.

Some 61 percent of Americans rank a candidate's view of the ACA as a high concern, compared with 80 percent who rank policies on jobs and the economy as a high concern.

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the health-care reform? Take our quiz.

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

View the original article here

Health-care Stocks: Medicaid insurers surge on Amerigroup deal

By Russ Britt, MarketWatch

LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — Medicaid insurers surged in early trading Monday, anticipating a reshuffling among health carriers after WellPoint Inc. announced plans to buy Amerigroup Corp. for a 43% premium.

Shares of Amerigroup /quotes/zigman/265070/quotes/nls/agp AGP +38.17%  , a player in Medicaid coverage, were catapulted by 38% after WellPoint /quotes/zigman/362231/quotes/nls/wlp WLP +3.17%  , one of the nation’s biggest insurers, agreed to pay $92 a share for the company, or $4.9 billion. Amerigroup shares were up $24.46 to $88.80 while WellPoint shares were up nearly 3% to $61.50.

Health insurer WellPoint is buying Amerigroup for $4.9 billion, bringing together two major health-care carriers. (Photo: Associated Press)

The news sent shares of other Medicaid insurers soaring, as the market apparently now expects more mergers in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul bill. The ruling preserved the federal expansion of the Medicaid program for indigent patients, though the court ruled that it’s not mandatory for states to participate.

Fellow Medicaid insurer Centene Corp. /quotes/zigman/292665/quotes/nls/cnc CNC +19.32%  posted a 20% gain to $34.73 on the news. Other Medicaid insurers to bask in the glow were WellCare Health Plans Inc. /quotes/zigman/341770/quotes/nls/wcg WCG +18.47%  , which was up more than 18% to $62.39, while Molina Healthcare Inc. /quotes/zigman/317140/quotes/nls/moh MOH +16.78%  surged by 14% to $26.31.

Analysts said, however, that WellPoint wasn’t reacting to the Supreme Court ruling by making the deal for Amerigroup. The move allows WellPoint to have substantial lines of business in both Medicare and Medicaid.

But the deal will also allow Indianapolis-based WellPoint to benefit from the Medicaid expansion, analyst Chris Rigg of Susquehanna Financial Group said in a morning note to clients.

“There is uncertainty around states’ willingness to participate in the expansion program but if all states opt in, approximately 17 million uninsured lives are expected to be covered through Medicaid expansion,” Rigg wrote. He added that the new company would have a presence in the four largest dual-eligible states, with potential revenue of $100 million.

Deutsche Bank’s Scott Fidel concurred, adding that Amerigroup, headquartered in Virginia Beach, Va., was probably the best-positioned Medicaid player.

“This acquisition significantly enhances WellPoint’s Medicaid franchise providing the company with the best pure-play asset and management team in Medicaid managed care, in our view,” Fidel said in a note to clients.

Russ Britt is the Los Angeles bureau chief for MarketWatch.

View the original article here

3 Health-Care Misconceptions That Never Die

Rule of thumb: Wherever there is major legislation, trillions of dollars, and your well-being at stake, there will be claims driven by emotion instead of fact. Case in point: Health care.

Here are three widespread health-care misconceptions I personally used to hold before digging into the facts.

Myth: Europe has socialized medicine compared with a free-market system in America.
Fact: By nearly any measure, the U.S. government spends more on health care than most European governments.
Yes, most European governments offer universal health coverage, and the main health insurance system in America is private insurance. But the U.S. government spends a lot on health insurance for its elderly (Medicare) and poor (Medicaid), plus layers of other subsidies. It's actually bigger than the private sector. State, local, and federal governments spend about $1.3 trillion annually on health care, compared with less than $1 trillion from the private sector, according to David Leonhardt of The New York Times.

Here's the real mindblower: The U.S. government spends more money per citizen covering a minority of its population than most European governments spend covering their entire populations:

Source: OECD.

These figures are adjusted for differences in the cost of living between countries, so it's truly an apples-to-apples comparison.

There are other ways to view this. As a share of government spending, the U.S. spends more on health care than all European governments except Switzerland, according to the OECD. This chart is probably the most complete measure, showing government health spending as a percentage of GDP. It still puts the U.S. at above average compared with major nations that offer universal coverage:

Source: OECD, Kaiser Family Foundation.

It's pretty clear. Government health care in America is larger and takes up a bigger share of the economy than several countries we often tag with a "socialized" label. And it bears repeating: Government health care in America only covers a minority of the population, while other nations cover everyone. As Ezra Klein once said of these numbers: "This is serious pitchforks-and-torches stuff, if only people really understood it."

And what about private coverage? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 65% of nonelderly Americans have private health insurance. By contrast, about 90% of French citizens carry private supplemental health insurance that covers payments not provided under the country's universal system.

Myth: The U.S. health-care system is more efficient than other bureaucratic behemoths around the world.
Reality: By most measures, America has one of the least efficient health-care systems in the world.
Health economist Henry Aaron once remarked:

Like many other observers, I look at the U.S. health care system and see an administrative monstrosity, a truly bizarre melange of thousands of payers with payment systems that differ for no socially beneficial reason, as well as staggeringly complex public systems with mindboggling administered prices and other rules expressing distinctions that can only be regarded as weird.

Measuring the administrative costs for health-care systems is difficult and prone to undercounting. A good example: Some tout a slim 2% administrative cost for Medicare, but that doesn't include the cost of collecting premiums (done by the IRS) and a raft of billing work done by private contractors.

A more complete measure of public health administrative costs in America is 6%, compared with a 4% average among OECD nations, according to McKinsey & Co.

Include the private market and it's worse. The measure for administrative costs used by the OECD -- the difference between insurance premiums and medical costs -- was $465 per recipient per year in 2004, compared with an average among OECD nations of $104, and as low as $15 a year in Sweden. The only country with higher administrative costs is Luxembourg.

Focus on private insurers alone and it's pitiful. As Washington Post reporter T.R. Reid writes:

U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs in the world; they spend roughly 20 cents of every dollar for nonmedical costs, such as paperwork, reviewing claims and marketing. France's health insurance industry, in contrast, covers everybody and spends about 4 percent on administration. Canada's universal insurance system, run by government bureaucrats, spends 6 percent on administration. In Taiwan, a leaner version of the Canadian model has administrative costs of 1.5 percent; one year, this figure ballooned to 2 percent, and the opposition parties savaged the government for wasting money.

One Motley Fool commenter recently explained the reasoning for forgoing health insurance by noting the appeal of "not contributing a dime to the $950,000 salary of an insurance or billing company vice president." It's a reasonable gripe. WellPoint's (NYSE: WLP  ) CEO has been paid $63.5 million since 2007. Remember that next time your premiums go up.

Myth: America's uninsured are cared for by churches, charities, and at last resort, emergency rooms.
Fact: Put starkly, the uninsured face a 40% higher mortality rate than those with health insurance, even after adjusting for income, health status, body mass index, smoking, and alcohol use.
In 2007, President George W. Bush said, "People have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room."

That's true for the most part. As part of law signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, hospitals with emergency departments that receive government funds, including Medicare (all hospitals, basically), are obligated to evaluate all patients and provide treatment until they're in stable condition regardless of ability to pay. This has become the de facto health-care system for millions of Americans.

But it's hardly adequate. ERs must treat those who aren't in stable condition. Anything less -- say, preventive care -- can be off the table, and is often too expensive for the uninsured. Surgeon Atul Gawande recently wrote in the New Yorker:

A vascular surgeon in Indianapolis told me about a man in his fifties who'd had a large abdominal aortic aneurysm. Doctors knew for months that it was in danger of rupturing, but since he wasn't insured, his local private hospital wouldn't fix it. Finally, it indeed began to rupture. Rupture is an often fatal development, but the man -- in pain, with the blood flow to his legs gone -- made it to an emergency room. Then the hospital put him in an ambulance to Indiana University, arguing that the patient's condition was "too complex." My friend got him through, but he's very lucky to be alive.

Another friend, an oncologist in Marietta, Ohio, told me about three women in their forties and fifties whom he was treating for advanced cervical cancer. A Pap smear would have caught their cancers far sooner. But since they didn't have insurance, their cancers were recognized only when they caused profuse bleeding.

Yes, the ER will see you if you're in dire need. But by then illness can have developed into a more complicated -- and expensive -- ordeal. Or to the point where it's too late.

A 2009 study by a group of Harvard researchers published in the American Journal of Public Health reviewed a public health survey of 9,000 people in the 1980s. Following up in 2000 showed about 3% of the survey group had died. Even after controlling for age, income, weight, education, employment, tobacco and alcohol use, and physician-rated overall health, the researchers found those without insurance had a mortality rate 40% higher than those who did.

Why is complex. There isn't one single reason. But a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation provides key insight: The uninsured are three times more likely to claim problems getting needed care than those who have insurance. "Over 40% [of uninsured] do not have a regular place to go when they are sick or need medical advice, compared to just 9% of those with coverage," the report wrote. And that was in 2006, before the financial crisis. It's almost certainly higher today.

All of these issues are complicated and can't be given enough attention in one article. But we know the system is broken. We also know, for the most part, what works and what doesn't. Many aren't in favor of current reforms, but no one should be in favor of the status quo.

Check back every Tuesday and Friday for Morgan Housel's columns on finance and economics.

View the original article here

How Health-Care Ruling Will Impact Business

Business strategistCarol Roth weighs in on the potential impact on businesses from todays health-care ruling.

View the original article here

Health-care law benefits TN businesses, consumers

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Massachusetts health-care reform tests impact of employer 'tax' on jobs

The US Supreme Court calls it a tax. The Obama administration says it’s a penalty. In Massachusetts, where health-care mandates have been in effect for six years, they call the money a person pays for not having health insurance a “tax penalty." As far as small-business owners like Diane Giblin are concerned, it doesn’t make a difference one way or another.

“To me it’s the same no matter what you want to call it. It’s just another way to get into my pocket,” says Ms. Giblin, co-owner of a nine-employee metal fabrication company located just south of Boston. “Whether it’s a tax or a penalty, it’s the cost that you have to pay, it’s the money you to have to pay out."

But with the Supreme Court's historic ruling last week upholding the federal health-care reform law, the Massachusetts program faces increased scrutiny for how its plan, especially the mandate for small businesses, has played out in practice.

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about health-care reform? Take our quiz.

The upside of the Bay State's pioneering reform is clear: The state now has the country’s highest rate of people with health insurance, due in no small part to the requirement that businesses over a certain size help provide it. The downside is less clear: the longer-term impact on business hiring and employment.

Under the 2006 law, Massachusetts businesses with more than 11 employees or their equivalent must offer a “fair and reasonable contribution” toward coverage or pay the state a “Fair Share Assessment” of $295 per full-time employee. The law also requires businesses to help employees pay for premiums using pretax dollars.

Under the federal law, by contrast, businesses with more than 50 employees will face penalties (called a “shared responsibility payment”) equal to $2,000 per full-time employee, with some exclusions. Tax credits are intended to help smaller businesses get coverage for workers.

Almost 79 percent of nonelderly insured Massachusetts residents now receive health insurance through their employers. In 2010, under the most recent data, Massachusetts had about 188,000 employers, 22,324 of which had 11 or more full-time equivalent employees and were potentially subject to the tax penalty, according to the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy. Of that figure, 1,017 employers faced penalties, with restaurants making up the vast majority. Between 2006 and 2010, the penalties brought in an average of $15.7 million per year to the state, which helped offset costs for the entire law.

Businesses that rely on part-time or seasonal workers have reported the most problems in trying to comply. In the Cape Cod town of Wellfleet, where the local economy is tied to summer tourism, John Vincent Jr. says he’s struggled to keep his drive-in movie theater, mini-golf, and snack bar business in compliance.

Of the 50 people on payroll, the majority are college- or high-school-aged students doing summer work, he says. He also has four year-round employees, whose health benefits are paid 100 percent. That is down from 10 year-round employees a decade ago, a drop he blames on rising health-care costs, including double-digit premium increases, he says.

“If I had to all of sudden put 50 employees on the payroll, boy, we wouldn’t be in business, plain and simple,” Mr. Vincent says. “We’d have to charge $15 a ticket to meet all the cost expectations. We’d have to price ourselves out of the market.”

Ms. Giblin, who owns Draper Metal Fabrication in Holbrook, Mass., along with her husband, says they’ve provided health care for their employees since before then-Gov. MItt Romney signed the state's health-care reform into law. Employees pay 40 percent of their coverage, while the company picks up the rest. Health-care costs have increased by double digits for years now, she says, dating back to before the state law went into effect. Two years ago, the company dropped down a tier in coverage, forcing employees to pay more out of pocket and higher deductibles.

With sales steady at about $1.5 million to $2 million annually, the company kept pace with orders at its current payroll, Giblin says. The company has yet to consider dropping coverage, but for other small businesses, she says the 11-employee threshold is an obstacle to hiring.

“It’s definitely not an incentive, and with all the horrible economic factors out there, you don’t need a nonincentive,” she says.

So far, evidence that the Massachusetts law has depressed hiring is largely anecdotal. A Boston-based think tank, the Beacon Hill Institute, estimates that the law has depressed hiring by at least 18,000 jobs, though some experts dispute that conclusion. Unemployment in Massachusetts has consistently been lower than the national average; as of May, the rate stood at 6.0 percent, the lowest since October 2008.

“Employers here don’t like a lot of government intervention, but I think they have adapted,” says Sandy Reynolds, executive vice president with Associated Industries of Massachusetts, which represents 6,000 employers across the state.

State legislators are trying to hammer out changes to try to slow the growth of health-care costs, says Bill Vernon, state director for the National Federation of Independent Businesses. They are also trying to make it easier for employers to meet the threshold for “fair and reasonable” coverage by allowing them to include employees who get insurance, for example, through a spouse or a government program.

“When we passed the law, we never addressed the cost of health insurance," Mr. Vernon says of the Massachusetts statute. "We addressed access, we accessed coverage, and here we are six years later, trying to control the costs."

Despite grumblings, polls show that the Massachusetts law remains popular with residents. Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist who was instrumental in crafting the state law, says that for President Obama to win reelection, he’ll have to convince Americans of the federal law’s benefits.

“If the American public understands this law, they’ll feel about it like we do in Massachusetts, where there’s, what, two-thirds support for it,” Mr. Gruber says. “It’s not that we’re all crazy lefties here, OK? It’s that it’s a good law and people understand it here.”

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about health-care reform? Take our quiz.

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

View the original article here

Health-care bill one of many historic social laws

by J. Craig Anderson and Ryan Randazzo - Jun. 30, 2012 11:12 PM
The Republic | azcentral.com

With the U.S. Supreme Court's approval last week, the Affordable Care Act entered an elite canon of laws that have rewritten the social contract between American citizens and their government.

They include the Social Security Act of 1935, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the amendment to the Social Security Act that created Medicare and Medicaid, also in 1965.

Each added or altered social protections for large groups of Americans, but not without passionate debate and fierce constitutional challenges.

While the Affordable Care Act's ultimate place in history has yet to be determined, historians and legal scholars said if the past is a guide, the legislation will eventually become an accepted part of American society.

The health-care law "will have implications for tens of millions, including 30 million who will get access to health insurance and many more millions that will be affected by insurance-regulation reforms," said Lawrence Jacobs, a political-science professor at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.

Upheld Thursday by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, it requires almost everyone to obtain health coverage and guarantees it will be available to those previously uninsured or uninsurable.

Jacobs said the scope of the program places it in the same league as the programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society.

"The Supreme Court has signed off on a piece of legislation that is as sweeping and perhaps more sweeping than any social-welfare legislation in half a century and perhaps since the New Deal," said Jacobs, co-author of the 2010 book "Health Care Reform and American Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know."

"The number of people impacted by this health policy is enormous," he said. "It really opens a new day for financing and delivery of health care."

As with the health-care legislation, the Social Security Act's path into law was by no means assured when Roosevelt signed the act on Aug. 14, 1935.

The act provided financial benefits to retirees and the unemployed, along with a lump-sum benefit at death.

Payments to retirees were to be financed by a payroll tax, split 50-50 between workers and employers. The act also called for allocation of money to states to assist the elderly, unemployed, families with dependent children, maternal and child welfare, public-health services and the blind.

Despite broad popular support and passage by overwhelming majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives, the law quickly faced no fewer than three Supreme Court challenges attacking its two principal components.

According to a historical account from the U.S. Social Security Administration, Roosevelt and his advisers had serious doubts whether the court would deem constitutional either Social Security's old-age insurance or unemployment-compensation programs.

The court had in prior years struck down legislation to broaden the federal government's authority to impose social regulations on the states, including a handful of early New Deal programs, such as the Railroad Retirement Act of 1934, which established a mandatory retirement plan for railroad workers, and the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which authorized the president to impose codes of fair competition on various trades or industries at the request of trade associations. In both cases, the court's majority ruled the laws were attempts to disguise social regulation as commercial regulation.

Both were struck down in 1935, the same year Social Security was signed into law.

By 1937, however, the Supreme Court's majority had begun to espouse a more liberal view of constitutional federalism, said David Gartner, associate law professor at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law.

The reason behind what is referred to as the court's "switch in time" isn't entirely known.

Gartner said it's likely the justices were responding to a combination of public criticism over previous decisions and threats by Roosevelt to replace them through proposed legislation known as "court packing." The idea was to add a new member to the court for every justice over 70 years old with at least 10 years on the court, which at the time included six of the nine Supreme Court members.

The court-packing bill failed in Congress, but it's possible it influenced the justices' opinions, Gartner said.

Whatever the reason, the Supreme Court upheld the old-age insurance and unemployment-compensation provisions of Social Security in decisions handed down on May 24, 1937.

While the New Deal was an attempt to rescue the economy and Americans from financial disaster through federal spending programs, Johnson's Great Society was a broad effort to revive post-World War II prosperity while putting an end to poverty and racial inequality.

Spurred on by the ideals of his assassinated predecessor, President John F. Kennedy, Johnson set out to pass a number of landmark social-welfare initiatives, including the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and establish the Medicare and Medicaid federal health-insurance and benefits programs.

Perhaps the most contentious of those was the Civil Rights Act, an attempt to codify the demands of the civil-rights movement in federal law. It prohibited many forms of race and gender discrimination, including racial segregation and discriminatory application of voter-registration requirements.

It also outlawed racial segregation in schools, many workplaces and by institutions that served the general public.

Before Kennedy's death, Johnson, a former U.S. senator from Texas, was not regarded as a champion of civil rights and had in fact worked behind the scenes to help defeat a previous civil-rights bill in 1957.

However, Johnson's political maneuvering and back-room dealing less than a decade later, which included threats and coercion to garner the votes to break a Senate filibuster and pass the 1964 act, is legendary.

Initially, Johnson worked with then-Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield to exploit a procedural technicality and prevent the bill from being referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it almost surely would have died.

Still, a bloc of 18 Southern Democratic senators, including Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Richard Russell of Georgia, launched a filibuster on the Senate floor to prevent its passage.

"We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our states," Russell told the Senate.

After a 57-day stalemate, Johnson's efforts to secure favorable votes succeeded, the filibuster was defeated and the Civil Rights Act passed in the Senate, 71-29.

Passage caused an uproar in Southern states, where white residents were accustomed to racial segregation and the repression of blacks.

Attempts to strike down the law included two Supreme Court challenges in 1964, including Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States. The court's landmark decision in the case found in favor of the federal government, arguing that Congress could use the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to adhere to the Civil Rights Act.

Entering the 1960s, voting-rights activists were fighting discrimination. Some state and local governments used literacy tests, poll taxes and intimidation through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan to keep minorities from voting.

After the murder of several voting-rights activists, and an attack on peaceful protesters by Alabama state law-enforcement officers in March 1965, Johnson called for a law to rectify the situation.

The law, which echoed the 15th Amendment's prohibition on restricting a person's right to vote based on race, had provisions targeting places where discrimination at the polls was most rampant, including most Southern states, Arizona, Alaska, and certain counties in other states. Those jurisdictions could not make voting-law changes until they were approved by the U.S. attorney general or District Court in Washington, D.C., to ensure that they did not discriminate.

The act also prohibited most literacy testing, especially in places with low voter registration. The law didn't prohibit poll taxes but directed the attorney general to challenge them in court, where they eventually were defeated.

The Supreme Court upheld the Voting Rights Act in 1966 in the case South Carolina vs. Katzenbach.

Theodore Roosevelt endorsed national health insurance in 1912 as part of the Progressive Party platform, but it wasn't until 1965 that medical coverage for the elderly and poor gained passage.

In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt supported national health insurance, and Harry Truman, his successor as president, helped develop the concept of guaranteed hospital care for those on Social Security.

Medicare is an insurance program serving mostly those older than 65, regardless of income, as well as younger people with disabilities and dialysis patients.

Kennedy and Johnson both backed the measure, according to accounts from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Demographic changes helped spur passage. Between 1950 and 1963, the elderly population grew from about 12 million to 17.5 million, and the cost of hospital care rose about 6.7 percent a year, several times the annual increase in the cost of living, according to the Social Security Administration.

By 1964, only half of senior citizens in the U.S. had insurance for hospital care, and many lived in poverty with untreated illnesses.

With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, Johnson got it passed. "We marvel not simply at the passage of this bill," Johnson said at the 1965 signing ceremony. "What we marvel at is that it took so many years to pass it."

Medicaid, the federal-state assistance serving low-income people of all ages, was well-received. In the first three years of the program, which is funded by a tax on the earnings of employees, matched by contributions by employers, nearly 20 million people enrolled, according to the Social Security Administration.

A Harris Poll conducted in March 2011 found that Medicare tied with crime fighting as most popular of government services, with 88 percent supporting the program. Social Security received 85 percent support, with Medicaid receiving 74 percent support.

As was the case with major social regulations that preceded it, the Affordable Care Act is unlikely to gain acceptance from a majority of Americans for years, public-policy analysts say.

Still, the challenges to repealing and replacing it are large enough that the act likely is here to stay, said John Ellwood, a professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley.

Ellwood said the health-care act is unpopular with many, but Republicans will have a difficult time replacing it with anything substantially different.

"Most Americans are satisfied with their health insurance or scared to death you are going to take it away from them," he said. "Regardless of where you are on this issue, so far (the act) has not sold very well to the American people. Folks on the right see this as an expansion of government and they don't like that, and they don't see how it helps them (because they mostly already have coverage)."

However, he said that polling shows some people don't like it because they want an even more liberal, single-payer plan. When those people are counted as supporting the measure, the breakdown of supporters to detractors is closer to 50-50, he said.

When Social Security was enacted, it was an easier sell because it was a totally new program, people got benefits and the tax rate was extremely low, Ellwood said.

"It was equally divided in Congress ... but people received benefits without paying higher rates," he said. "It was incredibly popular in the beginning."

Repealing the health-care law is unlikely without a Republican sweep giving them control of Congress and the presidency, Ellwood said.

"This is why it was so hard to put it through in the first place," he said. "This has been the left-wing dream since Teddy Roosevelt. Franklin Roosevelt refused to make it a part of Social Security because he knew it would fail. Kennedy and Johnson didn't even try (to pass it), and (Johnson) did Medicare/Medicaid instead. Carter tried and failed. Nixon tried and failed."

Another obstacle to its repeal is that many people favor significant portions of the law, just not the individual mandate requiring uninsured people to buy insurance.

"They hate the mandate, and love everything else," Ellwood said. "They don't see that without the mandate, everything else falls apart, unless you run up huge deficits. That is why the mandate was key."

Fundamentally, even though many people support most elements of the act, such as not allowing insurance companies to drop them as readily, they don't like government requirements, he said.

"Fear of the government is just embedded in American psyches," Ellwood said.

Reach the reporter at craig.anderson@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8681.

View the original article here

Is Court's Health-Care Ruling a Wise Decision? It Depends...

THURSDAY, June 28 (HealthDay News) -- Supporters of the Obama administration's health care reform law said Thursday that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding the landmark legislation protects the health of millions of Americans, but critics claim it does so at the expense of key civil liberties and exacts a high economic toll.

The 5-to-4 ruling "means millions of Americans can look forward to the coverage they need to get healthy and stay healthy," Dr. Jeremy Lazarus, president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement.

"This decision protects important improvements, such as ending coverage denials due to preexisting conditions and lifetime caps on insurance, and allowing the 2.5 million young adults up to age 26 who gained coverage under the law to stay on their parents' health insurance policies," Lazarus said.

Already, about 54 million Americans are benefiting from expanded preventive and wellness care coverage, Lazarus noted.

But many of those who oppose the legislation fear the federal government is intruding into the lives of private citizens.

"I'm disappointed that the Court is willing to give the federal government the power to tell you what has to be in your health care plan down to your contraceptives and mammograms," said John Goodman, president and founder of the National Center for Policy Analysis. "That's a great deal of power."

Economically, the Affordable Care Act "is one reason economic recovery has been so anemic," he suggested. Although hours worked across the United States are now what they were before the recession, hiring is not at pre-recession levels, he said, attributing that lag to "Obamacare" insurance requirements.

"The mandates come with a big price tag for employers and employees," Goodman said. The cost of family coverage works out to $6 an hour, he added.

Whether for or against the law, experts voiced relief that a decision was reached.

"We're very relieved and eager to move forward from here now that we have some certainty," said Dr. Glen Stream, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

The law's comprehensive primary-care initiative ensures funding for important health practices related to the "medical home" approach, he said. Preventive services, such as wellness coaching, dietitians and electronic record-keeping programs, are now accessible to many Americans through public and private payers, he noted.

Another benefit, according to Stream, is the provision for primary care work-force training. "Federally qualified community health centers have the capacity to train family physicians, which is critical," he said.

"Now we can work on other meaningful reforms," he said, mentioning liability reform.

Alison Renner Manson, manager of government affairs and policy for the National Coalition on Health Care, predicted that Congress has some hard work ahead. In some ways, the ruling was only the tip of the iceberg, she noted.

"The decision upholds existing law, so we're not looking at major changes," she said. "A lot of decisions on health care need to be made over the next year that will have a larger impact."

For instance, even with the Affordable Care Act in place, as much as one-third of U.S. health spending benefits no one's health, Manson said.

"It's an ongoing problem we have to deal with one way or another," she said. These issues include unnecessary or duplicated tests and services, excessive administrative costs, and instances of fraud and abuse, she explained. "We want to get more for our health-care dollars, but we don't want people to go without services," she said. And for that to happen, consumers, politicians and policy makers will have to work together, her group believes.

Because the court decision upheld the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act under a constitutional tax provision, there could be surprise financial implications, some say.

Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), said in a statement that she anticipates financial obstacles as a result of the ruling. AHIP is a Washington, D.C.-based trade association representing the health insurance industry.

"The law expands coverage to millions of Americans, a goal health plans have long supported, but major provisions, such as the premium tax, will have the unintended consequences of raising costs and disrupting coverage unless they are addressed," she noted.

"Health plans will continue to work with policymakers on both sides of the aisle to make coverage more affordable, give families and employers peace of mind, and promote choice and competition," she said.

Figures reviewed by AHIP indicate that the minimum essential health benefits requirement "will result in less affordable coverage for individuals, families and small employers by forcing them to 'buy up' and purchase more coverage than they may want or need," she added.

More information

To learn more about a medical home, see the American College of Physicians.

View the original article here

Health-care reform: what polls say ahead of a Supreme Court ruling

As the US Supreme Court prepares to announce its ruling on President Obama's health-care reform law, polls reveal an American public sharply divided on the issue.

They agree on the major problems in the health-care system – the high cost of care and patchwork access to insurance. But surveys also show a large rift over solutions, which suggests that both Democrats and Republicans will have to tread carefully in fashioning a policy response after a high-court ruling expected next week.

Many court-watchers believe the Supreme Court is poised to strike down a central plank in the Affordable Care Act – a mandate that individual Americans must carry health insurance or pay a fine. The court could rule that this "individual mandate" is an unconstitutional power grab by Washington against the rights of individuals and state policymakers.

QUIZ: How much do you know about health-care reform?

Polling several months ago by Gallup found that Americans essentially expect that outcome, with fully 72 percent saying the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

No matter how the court rules, a stepped-up policy debate over health care will become part of the backdrop for the presidential election campaign.

If the court upholds the entire law or most of it, Republicans in Congress are expected to mount an effort to repeal it. Repeal is also a campaign pledge of Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president.

If the court strikes the whole law down, Mr. Obama and Democrats may call it an "activist" ruling that deprives Americans of provisions they largely support, such as the call for insurance companies to offer coverage to all comers regardless of their medical condition.

As the two parties prepare to argue over the law, the court ruling, and next policy steps, the public appears skeptical of both sides.

First, the law passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by Obama in 2010 isn't widely popular. Some 47 percent of Americans say they oppose the Affordable Care Act, according to a mid-June poll released this week by the Associated Press and GfK. Only 33 percent say they support it, and the support level hasn't been above 45 percent in AP polling over more than two years.

Separately, a February Gallup poll found Americans more likely to say that the law will make their own health-care situation worse rather than better.

But polls also don't give Republicans much comfort on the health-care issue.

Gallup polling in 2011 found 50 percent of Americans saying it's government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have health coverage, versus 46 percent who opposed that premise. Moving toward universal coverage, via a mix of private and government insurance programs, is the central goal of Obama's reforms.

Many Americans support the law's requirement that insurers offer coverage to consumers regardless of their health condition. Since that provision imposes extra costs on insurers, it is married in the law with the individual mandate – intended to prod millions of young and healthy people to become a new source of revenue for health insurers.

Even as many Americans say they don't like the Obama law, many would also be disappointed if it were repealed by Congress.

A new poll from the Pew Research Center finds that 48 percent of Americans would be unhappy if the Supreme Court rules the entire law unconstitutional, while 44 percent would be happy.

But a slightly larger share of Americans, 51 percent, say they'd be unhappy if the court leaves the whole law in place.

A mixed ruling, with the individual mandate thrown out but the rest of the law kept in place, would have its own public-relations challenge. Many Democrats would be disappointed, while many Republicans would wish the court had gone further. In all, 51 percent in the Pew poll said they'd be unhappy with that outcome.

What's clearest about public opinion may be this: In their concern about issues of access and rising costs, Americans don't want Washington to do nothing. If the court strikes down the whole Affordable Care Act, fully 77 percent of Americans in the new AP/GfK poll said Congress should start on a new bill, not leave the health-care system as it is.

Republicans including Mr. Romney are talking not just about repealing the act, but also about replacing it with what they say would be more effective and affordable reform.

QUIZ: How much do you know about health-care reform?

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

View the original article here

Health Care REIT Comments on Genesis HealthCare’s Acquisition of Sun Healthcare Group

TOLEDO, Ohio--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Health Care REIT, Inc. (HCN) announced today that its largest tenant, Genesis HealthCare, has entered into an agreement to purchase Sun Healthcare Group (NASDAQ GS: SUNH) in a $300 million transaction. The combination of Genesis HealthCare and Sun Healthcare Group will create the largest provider of post-acute and skilled nursing services in the country with over 420 facilities located in 29 states. On a combined basis, the two companies generated approximately $4.0 billion in revenue in 2011.

“The transaction provides George Hager and his team the opportunity to expand the Genesis portfolio and to increase the scale of its rehabilitation therapy, hospice and inpatient services,” commented George L. Chapman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Health Care REIT, Inc. “We expect the transaction to have a positive impact on the financial strength of Genesis, further enhancing our investment.”

Genesis' corporate fixed charge coverage is expected to remain unchanged as a result of the transaction, with the opportunity for improvement when operational efficiencies are achieved. The eighteen facilities currently leased by Health Care REIT to Sun will be added to the master lease with Genesis, generating a nominal improvement in facility level payment coverage of the Genesis lease.

The transaction has been approved by Genesis’ and Sun’s Boards of Directors. The transaction is subject to customary closing conditions, including Sun Healthcare Group stockholder approval, regulatory approval and expiration of the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. The transaction is expected to close in the second half of 2012.

About Health Care REIT, Inc.

Health Care REIT, Inc., an S&P 500 company with headquarters in Toledo, Ohio, is a real estate investment trust that invests across the full spectrum of seniors housing and health care real estate. The company also provides an extensive array of property management and development services. As of March 31, 2012, the company’s broadly diversified portfolio consisted of 956 properties in 46 states. More information is available on the company's website at www.hcreit.com.

Forward-Looking Statements and Risk Factors

This document may contain forward-looking statements as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. When the company uses words such as may, will, intend, should, believe, expect, anticipate, project, estimate or similar expressions, it is making forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties. The company’s expected results may not be achieved, and actual results may differ materially from expectations. This may be a result of various factors, including Sun stockholder approval, regulatory approval and expiration of the HSR waiting period; the parties performance of their obligations under the transaction agreements; competition within the health care and seniors housing industries; unanticipated difficulties and/or expenditures relating to the transaction; and Genesis’ ability to realize operating efficiencies. Additional factors are discussed in the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and in its other reports filed from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company assumes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements or to update the reasons why actual results could differ from those projected in any forward-looking statements.

View the original article here

Medicaid’s future tied to court decision on health-care reform

Medicaid’s future tied to court decision on health-care reform - The Washington Post Print SubscriptionToday's PaperDiscussionsGoing Out GuidePersonal PostArchivesBlogsPhotosVideosHome PoliticsIn PoliticsCampaign2012CongressCourts &LawThe Fed PageHealth CarePollingWhite HouseBlogs & ColumnsBlogs & Columns

Romney fundaisers in Michigan;...
Election 2012 | Natalie JenningsRomney’s claim that Obama did ‘nothing...
The Fact Checker | Josh HicksMormonism as a diet strategy?
She The People | Karen TumultyObama ups ante on ‘Fast and Furious’
The Fix | Chris CillizzaIn the NewsEric Holder Executive privilege Bain Capital Latinos Marco Rubio OpinionsIn OpinionsTolesCartoonsTelnaesAnimationsThe Post's ViewLeft-LeaningRight-LeaningLocal OpinionsColumnist IndexFeatured Blogs

Joe the Plumber vs. the fruit
ComPost | Alexandra PetriNo end to the cynicism
The Plum Line | Greg SargentToday's GOP really is different
PostPartisan | Jonathan BernsteinHow does a Democrat survive Obama?
Right Turn | Jennifer RubinTrending TopicsDebasing the presidency Other war on women MSNBC University of Virginia LocalIn LocalD.C.MarylandVirginiaCrimeEducationObituariesTrafficWeatherThe Root DCBlogs & ColumnsBlogs & Columns

An alternative definition of summer...
Capital Weather Gang | Jack WilliamsSweatin’ to the solstice
Going Out Gurus | Stephanie MerryU-Va. mess: Sign of the (bad) times
The Answer Sheet | Valerie StraussInsider’s guide to D.C.
The Buzz | Andy SmithIn the NewsU-Va. D.C. streetcars Rickie Harris D.C. weather CrossFit SportsIn SportsRedskins/NFLCapitals/NHLWizards/NBANationals/MLBD.C. United/SoccerCollegesAllMetSportsOther SportsBlogs & ColumnsBlogs & Columns

Evason hired to coach AHL’s Admirals
Capitals Insider | Katie CarreraNats-Orioles trash talk video
DC Sports Bog | Sarah KogodRedskins put standing room tickets...
The Insider | Mike JonesNats face choice on Wang
Nationals Journal | Adam KilgoreIn the NewsJerry Sandusky trial Percy Harvin LeBron James Joel Peralta Secretariat NationalIn NationalEnergy & EnvironmentHealth & ScienceHigher EducationNational SecurityOn FaithOn LeadershipInnovationsOn GivingCorrectionsBlogs & Columns

House puts squeeze on military’s...
Checkpoint Washington | Walter PincusUncle Sam Googled you, now what?
Ideas@Innovations | Dominic BasultoSouthern Baptist Convention elects...
Post Leadership | Jena McGregorKey Catholic Obama ally shifts...
Under God | Michelle BoorsteinIn the NewsSummer solstice Marco Rubio Bryce Harper G-20 summit Jerry Sandusky WorldIn WorldAfricaTheAmericasAsia &PacificEuropeMiddle EastNational SecurityWar ZonesSpecial ReportsColumns & BlogsLatest Stories

Deadly attacks in Afghanistan
Sayed SalahuddinWikiLeaks founder could be jailed
Anthony Faiola and Karla AdamPalestinian court secures conviction...
Karin BrulliardAmong Syrian rebels, a shared sense...
Austin TiceIn the NewsSyrian rebels Egypt chaos Palestinian court Expensive cities BusinessIn BusinessEconomyIndustriesLocal BusinessMarketsPolicy&RegulationTechnologyWorldBusinessCapital BusinessOn Small BusinessBlogs & Columns

Singletary: Recovering from the...
The Color of Money | Michelle SingletaryGoogle ‘surprised’ that British...
Post Tech | Hayley TsukayamaA blot on Britain’s jubilee
Steven PearlsteinMassachusetts and the mandate
Wonkblog | Sarah KliffIn the NewsGmail Greece Microsoft tablet TechIn TechnologyPolicyGadgetReviewsInnovationGreenTechnologyPhotoGalleriesBlogs & Columns

Did you invest in Facebook?
Faster Forward | Hayley TsukayamaGoogle ‘surprised’ that British...
Post Tech | Hayley TsukayamaIs Apple saving the real show for...
The Verge | Joshua TopolskyIn the NewsGmail Greece Microsoft tablet LifestyleIn LifestyleAdviceCarolyn HaxFoodHome & GardenStyleTravelWeddingsWellnessMagazineKidsPostBlogs & Columns

Gluten-free products at the Fancy...
All We Can Eat | Carol BlymireJeremy Scott, Adidas and fashion’s...
The Style Blog | Maura JudkisNew Adidas sneakers spark outrage
The Root DC Live | Delece Smith-BarrowCelebvocate: Jada Pinkett Smith...
The Reliable Source | The Reliable SourceIn the NewsCarolyn Hax Michaele Salahi Jeremy Scott Food Security Fancy Food EntertainmentIn EntertainmentBooksComicsGoing Out GuideHoroscopesMoviesMuseumsMusicPuzzlesTheater & DanceTVBlogs & Columns

98 Degrees will reunite for one...
Celebritology 2.0 | Sarah Anne HughesWeekend links
Classical Beat | Anne MidgetteDean Haspiel donates mini-comics...
Comic Riffs | Michael Cavna‘Bristol Palin: Life’s a Tripp’...
The TV Column | Lisa de MoraesIn the NewsKevin Roche Todd Palin Doug Culver Molly Sims ‘Breaking Dawn’ JobsIn Jobs#header-v3 #main-nav li.realestate{display:none;}#header-v3 #main-nav li a.top, #header-v3 #main-nav li a.top:link, #header-v3 #main-nav li a.top:visited, #header-v3 #main-nav li a.top:hover {font-size:13px;padding: 0 4px 0 5px !important;}#header-v3 #main-nav li a.home, #header-v3 #main-nav li a.home:link, #header-v3 #main-nav li a.home:visited, #header-v3 #main-nav li a.home:hover {padding: 0px !important;}#header-v3 #main-nav li.politics {border-left:none;}#header-v3 #main-nav li.classifieds {border-right:none;}#header-v3 #main-nav-wrapper-v2 .classifieds .rollMe {right:-1px;height:100px;width:260px;}#header-v3 #main-nav li.politics:hover {-moz-box-shadow: none;-webkit-box-shadow: none;box-shadow: none;}ClassifiedsCarsDealsReal EstateRentalsShoppingObituariesOther ClassifiedsNational Energy & EnvironmentHealth & ScienceHigher EducationNational SecurityOn FaithOn LeadershipInnovationsOn GivingCorrectionsIn the NewsSummer solstice Marco Rubio Bryce Harper G-20 summit Jerry Sandusky body .ui-menu-item { margin: 4px 0; text-align: left; text-indent: 10px;}body .ui-autocomplete.ui-widget-content{ border-top: medium none; border-top-left-radius: 0; border-top-right-radius: 0; display: block; left: 154px; position: absolute; width: 199px; z-index: 1;}body .ui-widget-content a { background-image: none !important; border: medium none !important; border-radius: 0 0 0 0; color: #222222; cursor: pointer; display: block; line-height: 1.8em; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%;}.search input{ width: 200px;}???initialComments:true! pubdate:06/20/2012 07:59 EDT! commentPeriod:14! commentEndDate:7/4/12 7:59 EDT! currentDate:6/19/12 8:0 EDT! allowComments:true! displayComments:true!40 ways to cool off in D.C. this summer

PHOTOS: World’s most expensive cities

Romney on the campaign trail

The 5 traits of radically successful people

Medicaid’s future tied to court decision on health-care reformText SizePrintE-mailReprints By Phil Galewitz, The Washington Post

The future of the nation’s largest health insurance program — Medicaid — hangs in the balance of the Supreme Court’s decision on the 2010 health-care reform law.

The state-federal program that covers 60 million poor and disabled people would be greatly expanded under the health-care reform law, adding 17 million people starting in 2014.

Loading...

Comments

Weigh InCorrections?

Personal Post

But if the entire law is struck down, states for the first time since 2009 would be free to tighten eligibility and make it more difficult for people to apply. The law had barred such changes.

And under another scenario — if the justices declare unconstitutional just the law’s expansion of Medicaid — the entire program enacted in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society agenda could be threatened, health experts say.

Twenty-six states challenged the expansion, arguing that it was “unduly coercive” because they would lose all their federal Medicaid funding if they refused to expand the program.

“Depending on how sweeping and broadly written the decision is, it could be the entire Medicaid program has been unconstitutional since 1965, but we didn’t know it,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health policy at George Washington University.

Medicaid is the workhorse of the nation’s health system, covering 30 percent of all children, 70 percent of nursing home residents and 40 percent of all deliveries. But because of its byzantine eligibility rules, the program still covers fewer than half of the people with incomes under the poverty level, or $23,025 for a family of four.

Today, in all but four states, children in families with incomes under 200 percent of the federal poverty level are eligible for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Yet coverage for adults varies greatly by state, and whether a person is pregnant, working, disabled or has dependent children.

The median income level for parents to be eligible for Medicaid is now 63 percent of the poverty level, or about $14,000 for a family of four. Eight states offer full Medicaid coverage to adults without dependent children and 13 states offer limited Medicaid benefits to childless adults.

But under the health-care reform law, eligibility will become simpler in 2014: Every American with household income below 133 percent of the federal poverty level (about $31,000 for a family of four) would qualify.

The federal government would pay the full cost for those newly eligible for Medicaid through 2016, then the states would gradually assume some costs, topping out at 10 percent after 2019. Those costs are now more evenly split, with the federal government picking up approximately 57 percent and states paying the rest.

To help ensure enough doctors are willing to treat Medicaid patients, the health law also increases pay to primary care doctors to Medicare levels in 2013 and 2014 — an average reimbursement increase of about 34 percent, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“If the law survives, Medicaid will grow and look much different in 2014 than it does today,” said Alan Weil, executive director of the National Academy for State Health Policy. “If the law goes, states would begin looking at rollbacks in eligibility.”

— Kaiser Health News

Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health-care-policy organization that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

EmailTumblrRedditStumbleuponDiggDeliciousDiscussion Policy | FAQ | About DiscussionsLoading...

Comments

Add your comment  Read what others are sayingAbout Badges SuperFan Badge

SuperFan badge holders consistently post smart, timely comments about Washington area sports and teams.

More about badges | Request a badge

Culture Connoisseur Badge

Culture Connoisseurs consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on the arts, lifestyle and entertainment.

More about badges | Request a badge

Fact Checker Badge

Fact Checkers contribute questions, information and facts to The Fact Checker.

More about badges | Request a badge

Washingtologist Badge

Washingtologists consistently post thought-provoking, timely comments on events, communities, and trends in the Washington area.

More about badges | Request a badge

Post Writer Badge

This commenter is a Washington Post editor, reporter or producer.

Post Forum Badge

Post Forum members consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on politics, national and international affairs.

More about badges | Request a badge

Weather Watcher Badge

Weather Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on climates and forecasts.

More about badges | Request a badge

World Watcher Badge

World Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on international affairs.

More about badges | Request a badge

Post Contributor Badge

This commenter is a Washington Post contributor. Post contributors aren’t staff, but may write articles or columns. In some cases, contributors are sources or experts quoted in a story.

More about badges | Request a badge

Post Recommended

Washington Post reporters or editors recommend this comment or reader post.

You must be logged in to report a comment.

Sign in here

You must be logged in to recommend a comment.

Sign in here

Comments our editors find particularly useful or relevant are displayed in Top Comments, as are comments by users with these badges: . Replies to those posts appear here, as well as posts by staff writers.

All comments are posted in the All Comments tab.

More about badgesGet a badge

To pause and restart automatic updates, click "Live" or "Paused". If paused, you'll be notified of the number of additional comments that have come in.

Comments our editors find particularly useful or relevant are displayed in Top Comments, as are comments by users with these badges: . Replies to those posts appear here, as well as posts by staff writers. + SHARE THIS DEBATE The Post Most: NationMost-viewed stories, videos and galleries int he past two hours

Most PopularAuthorities: Texas dad won't face charges for beating to death man who allegedly attacked girlJerry Sandusky trial: Wife Dottie Sandusky defends her husbandThe 5 traits of radically successful peopleGas explosion at Opryland Hotel forces evacuation of 5,000 guests, no injuries reportedMedicaid's future tied to court decision on health-care reformTop VideosZimmerman tells wife he'll wear hoodie if he gets bailGov. Bob McDonnell speaks on UVA controversyMicrosoft Surface: How it stands up against iPadRodney King 911 call released by policeJerry Sandusky's wife takes the standTop GalleriesStuxnet and other big worms and virusesNik Wallenda finishes tightrope walk across Niagara FallsThe 1992 Los Angeles riotsFive traits of extraordinarily successful peopleFacing the consequences in Alabama Live Discussions

Ask now

Career Coach takes your questions

Live Q&A, Noon ET

Joyce Russell on how to keep employees engaged and motivated at work

11:00 AMAsk Tom -- Washington Post restaurant critic Tom Sietsema entertains your dining questions, comments, rants and raves.12:00 PMCareer Coach takes your questions12:00 PMFree Range on Food12:00 PMThe Reliable Source Live2:00 PMThe Web Hostess: What you're missing (or not) on the internetWeekly schedule, past shows

Connect with the Post

Facebook: Become a fan of the Washington Post

Facebook: Become a fan of the Washington Post

Twitter: Follow us on Twitter

RSS: Subscribe to our RSS feeds

Alerts: Sign up for news alerts

Mobile: Washington Post on the go

App Store: View our iPhone applications

Today's Paper

Full PaperMetroStyleSports

Updated newspaper stories

National Newsletters

Sign-up for e-mail newsletters and alerts and get the news you need delivered directly to your inbox.

 Economy & Business News AlertsBehind the Government ShowdownNational News AlertsThe MostToday's Headlines & ColumnistsSee all Washington Post Newsletters

Featured Reads

Post TechDeciphering the ones and zeros of tech policy with Cecilia Kang.

On Small BusinessExamine entrepreneurship and the people, policies and businesses that make it go.

D.C. Sports BogThe sports writer offers D.C.-focused commentary and features.

See more featured items

WP Social Reader Hide this

Friends' Activity Most Popular in national Most Popular in national

Your Friends’ Most Recent Activity

View More Activity

See what your friends are reading!

Powered byFeatured Advertiser Links? Recently diagnosed with M E S O T H E L I O M A? ?>>Get paid for your H I P  I M P L A N T troubles.>>Help Barack stand up for working Americans. Join our campaign now.>>The only candidate fighting for the middle class: Pres. Obama. Join us.>>Sign up for email updates from President Obama's 2012 campaign.>>Sign up for official email updates from Barack Obama's campaign.>>Looking to buy a home? Visit TWP Real Estate section for the latest open houses.>>Get the facts on volatile gas prices at GasPricesExplained.org>>Get answers about gas prices. GasPricesExplained.org>>What's driving volatile gas prices? Get the facts at GasPricesExplained.org>>What's up with the price of gas? GasPricesExplained.org>>Access your computer on-the-go with LogMeIn Pro>>Top national Stories People Also ReadMost Popular VideosAuthorities: Texas dad won’t face charges for beating to death man who allegedly attacked girlAssociated Press 

Jerry Sandusky trial: Wife Dottie Sandusky defends her husbandJoel Achenbach 

The 5 traits of radically successful peopleVenturebeat.com 

Gas explosion at Opryland Hotel forces evacuation of 5,000 guests, no injuries reportedAssociated Press 

Medicaid’s future tied to court decision on health-care reformPhil Galewitz 

LeBron James shakes off leg cramps, Heat beat Thunder 104-98 to move 1 win from NBA titleAssociated Press 

Hurricane center: Tropical Storm Chris moving over the north Atlantic; no threat to landAssociated Press 

Wrong way to eat a Reese’s? Ohio thief swipes hundreds of peanut butter cups from gas stationAssociated Press 

Ex-Philly housing chief, now in DC, acknowledges subordinate affair led to resignationAssociated Press 

Southern Baptists elect 1st African-American president, the Rev. Fred Luter Jr. of New OrleansAssociated Press 

What happens when Uncle Sam tells Google he doesn’t like your YouTube video?Dominic Basulto 

Summer myths, such as one shouldn’t swim for 30 minutes after eating, are bunkRachel Saslow 

On eve of Rio summit, Americans see environment deterioratingJuliet Eilperin; Scott Clement 

University of Virginia’s difficult leadership transitionJena Mcgregor 

Nadya Suleman’s home fails to get any bids at auction; house now goes to bank for foreclosureAssociated Press 

University of Virginia vice rector resigns in bid to calm uproar after school president oustedAssociated Press 

‘Fifty Shades’ of GodSally Quinn 

Lisa Brown, silenced on the Michigan House floor, helps read ‘Vagina Monolgues’ on statehouse stepsSusan Thistlethwaite 

Task force recommends against Vitamin D, calcium supplementsJennifer Huget 

In Sandusky trial, testimony shows how suspicions led to silenceJoel Achenbach 

 PoliticsOpinionsLocalSportsNationalWorldBusinessTechLifestyleEntertainmentPhotoVideoBlogsClassifieds More ways to get us

Home delivery Mobile & Apps RSS Facebook Twitter Social Reader

Newsletter & Alerts Washington Post Live Reprints & Permissions Post Store e-Replica Archive Contact Us

Help & Contact Info Careers Digital Advertising Newspaper Advertising About Us

The Washington Post Company In the community PostPoints Newspaper in Education Partners

washingtonpost.com © 1996- The Washington Post Terms of Service Privacy PolicySubmissions and Discussion PolicyRSS Terms of Service Ad Choices Section:/national/health-science.comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-primaryFont { font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 16px; }.comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-ui { text-align: left; }.comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-item-avatar { width: 48px; height: 48px; }.comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-item-avatar-wrapper { float: left; position: relative; }.comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-item-wrapper, .comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-item-subwrapper { float: left; width: 100%; }.comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-item-subcontainer { clear: both; }.comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-item-depth-0 { margin-left: 0px; }.comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-item-container-root-thread { padding: 10px 0 0 0; }.comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-item-content { word-wrap: break-word; clear: both; }.comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-ui, .comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-ui .ui-widget :active { outline: none; }.comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-item-date, .comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-item-from, .comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-item-via { float: left; }.comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-item-body { padding-top: 4px; }.comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-item-container-root { padding: 10px 0; }.comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-item-wrapper { padding-bottom: 10px; }.comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-item-wrapper .echo-item-body span.echo-item-text div div img { max-width: 95%; }.comments-full-wrapper-ie78 .echo-stream-container, .comments-full-wrapper-ie78 .echo-stream-container .echo-stream-body { border-bottom: none; }.comments-full-wrapper-ie78 .comment-count-label { margin-bottom: 0; }.comments-full-wrapper-ie78 #comment-info-links .about-comments a { margin-right: 4px; }.comments-full-wrapper-ie78 #comment-info-links .about-badges { font: normal 11px/18px arial, sans-serif; color: #666; }.comments-full-wrapper-ie78 #comment-info-links .about-badges a { text-decoration: none; font-weight: normal; color:#666; margin: 0 0 0 4px; padding: 0; height: 18px; }.comments-full-wrapper-ie78 .echo-stream-container.comments-wrapper-ie78 .echo-stream-body .echo-item-container.echo-item-container-child { padding-bottom: 10px; padding-top: 10px; }.echo-application-message { padding: 15px 0px; text-align: center; -webkit-border-radius: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #e4e4e4; }#view-all-comments-ie78 { border-top: 1px solid #ccc; border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; margin: 15px 0; clear: both; }#view-all-comments-message-ie78 { height: 70px; background: blue url('/rw/sites/twpweb/img/echo2/css/ie78-view-all-comments-bkgd.png') repeat-x left top; border: 1px solid #2e6c9b; text-align: center; padding:0 15px; font-family: Georgia, serif;}#view-all-comments-message-ie78 p.view-comments-link-ie78 { padding: 10px 0;}#view-all-comments-message-ie78 p.view-comments-link-ie78 a, #view-all-comments-message-ie78 p.view-comments-link-ie78 a:link, #view-all-comments-message-ie78 p.view-comments-link-ie78 a:hover, #view-all-comments-message-ie78 p.view-comments-link-ie78 a:visited { color: #fff; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; }#view-all-comments-message-ie78 p.comment-controls-ie78 a, #view-all-comments-message-ie78 p.comment-controls-ie78 a:link, #view-all-comments-message-ie78 p.comment-controls-ie78 a:hover, #view-all-comments-message-ie78 p.comment-controls-ie78 a:visited { color: #000; font-size: 12px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; }

View the original article here